Citation Nr: 0407487
Decision Date: 03/23/04 Archive Date: 04/01/04
DOCKET NO. 02-14 966A ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New
Jersey
THE ISSUES
1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to
reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a
pilonidal cyst.
2. Entitlement to service connection for lumbosacral strain.
3. Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid
condition, to include metastasis to the right and left
acetabulum, loss of kidney and tumors of the lungs.
4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a
rectal fissure with slight stenosis of the rectum.
WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant, appellant's spouse
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Sabrina M. Tilley, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from August 1952 to July
1954.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a December 2001 rating decision of the Newark,
New Jersey, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
The veteran provided testimony at a Travel Board hearing,
conducted in September 2003. A transcript of these
proceedings has been associated with the veteran's claims
folder.
This appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if
further action is required on your part.
REMAND
The Board initially notes that since the RO denied the claim
of entitlement to service connection for "a thyroid
condition, to include metastasis to the right acetabulum" in
December 2001, the veteran has amended his claim for
residuals of this disorder to include metastasis to the left
acetabulum, loss of kidney and tumors of the lungs.
The Board has determined that additional development is
necessary prior to completion of its appellate review.
Review of the veteran's December 2001 VA examination reports
shows that he reported that he underwent a laminectomy in
1984, and that he underwent a thyroidectomy in 1998. These
records are not currently associated with the claims file,
and it does not appear that an attempt has been made to
obtain them (they may overlap with the records of the
physicians discussed below). In addition, during his
hearing, held in September 2003, the veteran identified two
private health care providers from whom he had received
treatment. Specifically, during his hearing, the veteran
reported having received treatment from private physicians
identified "Dr. Kountz" and "Dr. Adn Doyle." These
records are not currently associated with the claims file,
and it does not appear that an attempt has been made to
obtain them. In this regard, in January 2001, the RO
attempted to obtain records from four physicians reportedly
associated with the Robert Wood Johnson University Medical
Group (hereinafter "RWJUMG") from whom the veteran reported
having received treatment. These physicians were identified
as "Dr. Beatriz Lega" (alternatively spelled during the
veteran's hearing as Dr. "Luga"), "Dr. Louis Amorosa,"
"Dr. David Loft" and "Dr. Sal Agarwahl." However, in
February 2001, the RO's requests for the records of these
physicians were returned by the postal service. The RO's
envelope was stamped "cannot locate." In his May 2002 NOD,
the veteran stated that he was still receiving treatment from
at least some of these physicians, and he provided a new
address for Dr. Luga, and a new zip code for the RWJUMG
(alternatively described as the "Clinical Academic
Building"). On remand, after all necessary authorizations
have been obtained, an attempt should be made to obtain all
records that have been identified by the veteran, to include
all records from Dr. Kountz, Dr. Adn Doyle and Dr. Luga. An
attempt should also be made to obtain all records from the
three other previously identified physicians who are
reportedly associated with RWJUMG (i.e., Dr. Amorosa, Dr.
Loft and Dr. Agarwahl), if, and only if, a new or otherwise
verified address is obtained for these three physicians from
the veteran.
Accordingly, the Board has no alternative but to defer
further appellate consideration and this case is REMANDED to
the RO via the AMC for the following actions:
1. The RO should make additional
attempts to obtain reports of treatment
from medical providers identified by the
veteran in his statement received in May
2002 and his testimony provided in
September 2003, or thereafter, to include
all records from Dr. Kountz, Dr. Adn
Doyle and Dr. Luga. The RO should also
attempt to obtain all records from Dr.
Amorosa, Dr. Loft, and Dr. Agarwahl, if,
and only if, a new or otherwise verified
address is obtained for these three
physicians from the veteran. Reports of
treatment associated with the 1984
laminectomy and the 1998 thyroidectomy
should be obtained as well. All evidence
obtained should be associated with the
veteran's claims folder.
2. Thereafter, the RO should
readjudicate the claims. If the benefits
sought on appeal remain denied, the
appellant and the appellant's
representative, if any, should be
provided a supplemental statement of the
case (SSOC). The SSOC must contain
notice of all relevant actions taken on
the claim for benefits, to include a
summary of the evidence and applicable
law and regulations considered pertinent
to the issue currently on appeal. An
appropriate period of time should be
allowed for response.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to
the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369
(1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans
Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, § 707(a), (b), 117
Stat. 2651 (2003) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B,
7112).
_________________________________________________
T. STEPHEN ECKERMAN
Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2003).